Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bhuwal vs Railway on 12 February, 2026
1
Item No.57/ C-IV O.A. No.1065/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No.1065/2024
This the 12th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Bhuwal, aged 60 years,
S/o R.L. Singh,
Retired as Track Maintainer From the office of
SSE/P.WAY
Northern Railway, Nizamuddin, R/o H. No. 8, Gali
No. B/1, Siddharth Vihar, Vijay Nagar, Gaziabad -
201009
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager,
Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi - 01
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
Delhi Division, State Entry Road,
New Delhi -06
3. The Divisional Personnel Officer,
DRM's Office, Delhi Division,
State Entry Road, New Delhi - 06
...Respondents
(By Advocates : Mr. Sanjeev Yadav)
2026.02.16
SNEHA
15:46:42+
MEENA
05'30'
2
Item No.57/ C-IV O.A. No.1065/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Honb'le Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 and order dated 22.10.2020 (Annex. A/1& A/2) declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequentially pass an order directing the respondents to place the applicant in old pension scheme under Rly. Servant (Pension) Rules, 1993 by taking into account the initial date of appointment as on 15.7.1981 after counting 50% of casual service of the applicant with all the consequential benefits as done in the case of similarly situated persons.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to regularize the services of the applicant from 1998 with all consequential benefits and pass an order of placing the applicant in old pension scheme.
(iii) any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1 The applicant was initially engaged as a Casual Labour under the Inspector of Works, Northern Railway, on 15.07.1981. However, he was disengaged from service w.e.f. 14.12.1981 on account of operational requirements.
2026.02.16 SNEHA 15:46:42+ MEENA 05'30' 3 Item No.57/ C-IV O.A. No.1065/2024 2.2 Aggrieved by his disengagement, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 420/2003 seeking re-engagement in Railway service. In compliance with the directions passed in CP No. 366/2004 arising out of the said O.A., and pursuant to order dated 22.08.2003, the respondents offered appointment to the applicant as Substitute Gangman vide letter dated 08.09.2005 after obtaining approval from the competent authority.
2.3 The applicant underwent the requisite Physical Efficiency Test on 26.07.2005 and was declared medically fit in medical category AYE-TWO and below vide Medical Memo dated 29.07.2005. Thereafter, he was appointed as Substitute Gangman w.e.f. 13.09.2005 in the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540 with initial pay fixed at Rs. 2610/-. He was subsequently screened on 04.08.2006.
2.4 It is further submitted that upon appointment, the applicant was covered under the New Pension Scheme (NPS). He filled the requisite NPS forms at the time of appointment and continued to contribute towards NPS throughout his service. Upon superannuation, he 2026.02.16 SNEHA 15:46:42+ MEENA 05'30' 4 Item No.57/ C-IV O.A. No.1065/2024 received settlement dues under the NPS scheme including his subscription amount. 2.5 The applicant thereafter submitted a request dated 01.06.2020 through the Single Window system seeking consideration under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 in place of the National Pension Scheme in terms of RBE No. 28/2020 dated 03.03.2020. The said request was considered and disposed of by the respondents vide letter dated 23.10.2020.
2.6 The respondents have stated that the Old Pension Scheme is applicable only to those Government employees whose posts were notified/approved by the competent authority before 22.12.2003 and that the applicant, having been appointed as Substitute Gangman on 13.09.2005, is not entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.
2.7 Learned counsel for the applicant assails the letter dated 27.10.2023 issued by the respondents in purported compliance of the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 979/2021, whereby the claim of the applicant for grant of benefit under the 2026.02.16 SNEHA 15:46:42+ MEENA 05'30' 5 Item No.57/ C-IV O.A. No.1065/2024 Old Pension Scheme (OPS) has been rejected by way of a speaking order, which reads as under:-
"Sub: The compliance of the order dated 18.08.2023 in OA No. 979/2021-Bhuwal versus & Union of India.
The case examined and following speaking order is passed:
The Hon'ble Tribunal disposes off the applicant's OA No. 979/2021 vide order dated 18.08.2023 with direction to the competent authority to let the applicant prefer an application in terms of OM dated 03.03.2023 on or before 31.08.2023. The competent authority is hereby directed to dispose off the said application by passing an appropriate order, taking a holistic view and if he is found otherwise eligible an appropriate relief shall also be passed.
Sh. Bhuwal was engaged as a casual labour in Railway. He filed an OA No. 420/2023 before the Hon'ble CAT/New Delhi for his re-engagement. In compliance of Hon'ble CAT's direction dated 21.03.2005, he was re-engaged vide letter dated 08.09.2005. He was later on screened on 04.08.2006. He resumed his duty as Gangman under ADEN/DEE on 13.09.2005.
He made representation on 28.08.2023 to place him in old pension scheme that was available prior to 01.01.2004. In his representation he has stated that the Hon'ble CAT/New Delhi vide order dated 21.03.2005 in CP-No. 366/2004 in OA No. 420/2003 has clearly directed that the respondents shall take immediate action to re-engage the applicant notionally from that day when the juniors were engaged but without any claim for back wages. This shall not be applied to those who have been re-engaged in presence of Court's orders.
On his appointment, he himself filled the NPS papers and all other formality of NPS. Throughout the service he continued to contribute towards NPS and on his superannuation from Railway service he has received the entire amount of settlement dues under NPS scheme including subscription towards NPS. He has concealed the fact from the Hon'ble Tribunal that he has superannuated from Railway service rather he submitted before the Court that applicant is still continuing in service.
In view of above the applicant cannot be covered under old pension scheme for the purpose of pension and other retiral dues."
2026.02.16 SNEHA 15:46:42+ MEENA 05'30' 6 Item No.57/ C-IV O.A. No.1065/2024 2.8 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned rejection is arbitrary, mechanical and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the respondents have failed to appreciate the true import of the judicial directions as well as the settled legal position governing the issue. According to the applicant, mere submission of forms under the National Pension System (NPS) at the time of appointment cannot be treated as a voluntary waiver of statutory rights, particularly when the applicant claims entitlement to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of applicable rules and judicial pronouncements. It is further contended that the impugned order does not deal with the core issue raised by the applicant and proceeds on an erroneous premise. 2.9 In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in an identical matter, namely, O.A. No. 986/2021 titled Virender Singh vs. Union of India & Anr., decided on 30.01.2025. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, wherein the Tribunal, 2026.02.16 SNEHA 15:46:42+ MEENA 05'30' 7 Item No.57/ C-IV O.A. No.1065/2024 after considering similar facts and circumstances, granted relief to the applicant therein. It is contended that the principle enunciated in the said judgment applies with full force to the present case and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to identical relief.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents reiterates the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. He submits that the applicant was appointed at a time when the NPS was already in force and was, therefore, mandatorily covered under the NPS regime. The applicant had himself filled up the requisite NPS forms and completed all related formalities without protest. Throughout his entire tenure of service, he continued to contribute towards the NPS and, upon attaining the age of superannuation from Railway service, he received the entire settlement dues under the NPS, including his own subscription and the employer's contribution as per rules. He further contends that the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands inasmuch as he failed to disclose that he had already superannuated and instead gave an impression that he was still in service in his earlier round of litigation. 2026.02.16 SNEHA 15:46:42+ MEENA 05'30' 8 Item No.57/ C-IV O.A. No.1065/2024
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material placed on record. The impugned speaking order reveals that the rejection of the applicant's claim is primarily founded on the reasoning that the applicant had voluntarily submitted NPS forms at the time of his appointment and continued under the NPS regime throughout his service career. The respondents have taken the view that since the NPS was operational at the relevant point of time and the necessary documentation was completed by the applicant, he cannot now turn around and claim coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.
4.1 However, the speaking order proceeds on the premise that since the NPS was operational at the relevant time and the requisite documentation was required to be completed as a condition of service, the applicant had no real option but to comply with the same; such compliance, therefore, cannot be construed as a conscious or voluntary waiver of his claim to be considered under the Old Pension Scheme, if otherwise found eligible. upon consideration of the factual matrix of the present case, we find that the issue involved 2026.02.16 SNEHA 15:46:42+ MEENA 05'30' 9 Item No.57/ C-IV O.A. No.1065/2024 herein is no longer res integra. A coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 986/2021, Virendra Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 30.01.2025, has dealt with an identical controversy. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the above analysis, the present OA deserves to be allowed. The Office Order dated 23.10.2020 rejecting the case of applicant for conversion from NPS to OPS is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to the applicant in light of Railway Board's Circular No. D-43/12/2018-F(E)III dated 03.03.2020 and also grant him notional benefit in terms of order dated 22.08.2003 in OA No.420/2003 for the purpose of pensionary benefit only.
7.2. Needless to mention that crucial date for determining the qualifying services for purpose of pension shall be reckoned from 22.08.2003 and not from 15.07.1981. The arrears/difference of pension be paid w.e.f 30.5.2020, i.e, from the date of application for conversion only. Necessary adjustments shall be carried out qua conversion from NPS to OPS within three months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
7.3. The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No Costs.
4.2 The facts of the present case bear a striking similarity to those considered in the aforesaid decision.
The reasoning adopted in O.A. No. 986/2021 squarely applies to the case at hand. Judicial discipline requires that we follow the ratio laid down by a coordinate Bench in the absence of any distinguishing feature or contrary binding precedent.
2026.02.16 SNEHA 15:46:42+ MEENA 05'30' 10 Item No.57/ C-IV O.A. No.1065/2024 4.3 Accordingly following the ratio laid down in Virendra Singh (supra), the present Original Application is allowed in terms of paragraph 7 of the judgment rendered in O.A. No. 986/2021. The impugned orders/letters dated 27.10.2023 and 23.10.2020 are set aside, and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit to the applicant in accordance with the directions contained in paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
6. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sm/
2026.02.16
SNEHA
15:46:42+
MEENA
05'30'